Orphaning Candidate packages for removal due to FTBFS, implications

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:01:23 +0100, Tomas wrote:

> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
> opened not closed in the bugzilla on the package.

Taking into account bugzilla ticket statistics is much more interesting
anyway, especially if combined with a package's FTBFS status *and* FAS
account status *and* bugzilla account status (= password renewed and
date of last login) *and* perhaps even scm-commit/koji-access status.

There are automated mass-rebuilds. There are provenpackagers who rebuild
packages for SONAME bumps and even for FTBFS. Packages are touched
regularly. But what does that tell about the package's owner and the
package itself?

Who notices if a package has N open tickets, of which N have not seen any
comment from the package's single maintainer in M months? With X additional
tickets CLOSED/INSUFFICIENT_DATA at EOL because reporters didn't respond
to the very late EOL NEEDINFO query either. How much do N, M and X grow
before an orphan package or a non-responsive maintainer is discovered?